Dataset Information

Evaluation of a Video Decision Aid to Reduce Decisional Conflict in Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Decision-Making.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) is recommended as a preferred practice for advance care planning with seriously ill patients. Decision aids can assist patients in advance care planning, but there are limited studies on their use for POLST decisions. We hypothesized that after viewing a POLST video, decision aid participants would demonstrate increased knowledge and satisfaction and decreased decisional conflict.

Design

Pre-and postintervention with no control group.

Setting/participants

Fifty community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older asked to complete a POLST based on a hypothetical condition.

Interventions

Video decision aid for Sections A and B of the POLST form.

Measurements

Pre- and postintervention participant knowledge, decisional satisfaction, decisional conflict, and acceptability of video decision aid.

Results

Use of the video decision aid increased knowledge scores from 11.24 ± 2.77 to 14.32 ± 2.89, P < .001, improved decisional satisfaction 10.14 ± 3.73 to 8.70 ± 3.00, P = .001, and decreased decisional conflict 12 ± 9.42 to 8.15 ± 9.13, P < .001. All participants reported that they were comfortable using the video decision aid, that they would recommend it to others, and that it clarified POLST decisions.

Conclusions

Participants endorsed the use of a POLST video decision aid, which increased their knowledge of POLST form options and satisfaction with their decisions, and decreased their decisional conflict in POLST completion. This pilot study provides preliminary support for the use of video decision aids for POLST decision-making. Future research should evaluate a decision aid for the entire POLST form and identify patient preferences for implementing POLST decision aids into clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Gallegos JV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720244 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Project description:Background/objectivesMany older persons with chronic illness use Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) to document portable medical orders for emergency care. However, some POLSTs contain combinations of orders that do not translate into a cohesive care plan (eg, cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR] without intensive care, or intensive care without antibiotics). This study characterizes the prevalence and predictors of POLSTs with conflicting orders.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingLarge academic health system.ParticipantsA total of 3,123 POLST users with chronic life-limiting illness who died between 2010 and 2015 (mean age = 69.7 years).MeasurementsIn a retrospective review of all POLSTs in participants' electronic health records, we describe the prevalence of POLSTs with conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and use clustered logistic regression to evaluate potential predictors of conflicting orders. We also examine the prevalence of conflicts between POLST orders for antibiotics and artificial nutrition with orders for cardiac arrest or medical interventions.ResultsAmong 3,924 complete POLSTs belonging to 3,123 decedents, 209 (5.3%) POLSTs contained orders to "attempt CPR" paired with orders for "limited interventions" or "comfort measures only"; 745/3169 (23.5%) POLSTs paired orders to restrict antibiotics with orders to deliver non-comfort-only care; and, 170/3098 (5.5%) POLSTs paired orders to withhold artificial nutrition with orders to deliver CPR or intensive care. Among POLSTs with orders to avoid intensive care, orders to attempt CPR were more likely to be present in POLSTs completed earlier in the patient's illness course (adjusted odds ratio = 1.27 per twofold increase in days from POLST to death; 95% confidence interval = 1.18-1.36; P < .001).ConclusionAlthough most POLSTs are actionable by clinicians, 5% had conflicting orders for cardiac arrest and medical interventions, and 24% had one or more conflicts between orders for cardiac arrest, medical interventions, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition. These conflicting orders make implementation of POLST challenging for clinicians in acute care settings.

Project description:BackgroundCompeting health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/designA two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.DiscussionAn individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore patients' and physicians' perspectives on a decision-making conversation for life-sustaining treatment, based on the Danish model of the American Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form.DesignSemi-structured interviews following a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.SettingDanish hospitals, nursing homes, and general practitioners' clinics.SubjectsPatients and physicians.Main outcome measuresQualitative analyses of interview data.FindingsAfter participating in a conversation about life-sustaining treatment using the Danish POLST form, a total of six patients and five physicians representing different settings and age groups participated in an interview about their experience of the process. Within the main research questions, six subthemes were identified: Timing, relatives are key persons, clarifying treatment preferences, documentation across settings, strengthening patient autonomy, and structure influences conversations. Most patients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable but also complicated due to the different levels of knowledge and attending to individual patient needs and medical necessities. Relatives were considered as key persons to ensure the understanding of the treatment trajectory and the ability to advocate for the patient in case of a medical crisis. The majority of participants found that the conversation strengthened patient autonomy.ConclusionPatients and physicians found having a conversation about levels of life-sustaining treatment valuable, especially for strengthening patient autonomy. Relatives were considered key persons. The timing of the conversation and securing sufficient knowledge for shared decision-making were the main perceived challenges.KEY POINTSConversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment are important, but not performed systematically.When planning a conversation about preferences for life-sustaining treatment, the timing of the conversation and the inclusion of relatives are key elements.Decision-making conversations can help patients feel in charge and less alone, and make it easier for health professionals to provide goal-concordant care.Using a model like the Danish POLST form may help to initiate, conduct and structure conversations about preferences for life-sustaining treatment.

Project description:BackgroundIt is essential to high-quality medical care that life-sustaining treatment orders match the current, values-based preferences of patients or their surrogate decision-makers. It is unknown whether concordance between orders and current preferences is higher when a POLST form is used compared to standard documentation practices.ObjectiveTo assess concordance between existing orders and current preferences for nursing facility residents with and without POLST forms.DesignChart review and interviews.SettingForty Indiana nursing facilities (29 where POLST is used and 11 where POLST is not in use).ParticipantsOne hundred sixty-one residents able to provide consent and 197 surrogate decision-makers of incapacitated residents with and without POLST forms.Main measurementsConcordance was measured by comparing life-sustaining treatment orders in the medical record (e.g., orders about resuscitation, intubation, and hospitalization) with current preferences. Concordance was analyzed using population-averaged binary logistic regression. Inverse probability weighting techniques were used to account for non-response. We hypothesized that concordance would be higher in residents with POLST (n = 275) in comparison to residents without POLST (n = 83).Key resultsConcordance was higher for residents with POLST than without POLST (59.3% versus 34.9%). In a model adjusted for resident, surrogate, and facility characteristics, the odds were 3.05 times higher that residents with POLST had orders for life-sustaining treatment match current preferences in comparison to residents without POLST (OR 3.05 95% CI 1.67-5.58, p < 0.001). No other variables were significantly associated with concordance.ConclusionsNursing facility residents with POLST are significantly more likely than residents without POLST to have concordance between orders in their medical records and current preferences for life-sustaining treatments, increasing the likelihood that their treatment preferences will be known and honored. However, findings indicate further systems change and clinical training are needed to improve POLST concordance.